OASIS PKCS 11 TC

 View Only

  • 1.  pkcs11-spec-v3.2-wd11.docx uploaded

    Posted 03-10-2025 07:30
    Submitter's message
    PKCS#11 v3.2 working draft 11 comes with following updates compared to working draft 10:
    • Sections 4.1.1 / 4.1.2 / 4.1.2: fixed references to section 5.7
    • Added CKR_MECHANISM_PARAM_INVALID to all message-based signing / verification / encryption / decryption functions that have input parameter ‘pParameter’; and added CKR_OPERATION_NOT_INITIALIZED to MessageBegin functions for message-based signing / verification / encryption / decryption; as per discussion Extra return values for message based apis
    • Added CKR_PARAMETER_SET_NOT_SUPPORTED as per discussion New error code for parameter set not supported
    -- Mr. Dieter Bong
    Document Name: pkcs11-spec-v3.2-wd11.docx
    Description
    PKCS#11 v3.2 working draft 11 (no markup)
    Download Latest Revision
    Public Download Link
    Submitter: Mr. Dieter Bong
    Group: OASIS PKCS 11 TC
    Folder: Working Drafts
    Date submitted: 2025-03-10 11:29:58


    ---------------------------------
    Best regards,
    Dieter
    ---------------------------------


  • 2.  RE: pkcs11-spec-v3.2-wd11.docx uploaded

    Posted 03-11-2025 07:36

    THALES GROUP LIMITED DISTRIBUTION to email recipients

     

    Hi,

    here a few minor comments on wd11. I don't think they are significant enough to hold up the public review.

     

    For the description of the new error code on line 2939, does it make sense to callout explicit algorithms like that? If we do, then we create a dependency that we will need to remember to update with every new algorithm that supports parameter sets.  I suppose the intent is to have a clear definition as to where the new error code should be used, and to avoid "creative" vendor uses. It could be specified in a more generic way; for example "Used with object types that support the CKA_PARAMETER_SET attribute."?  Or just not restricted?

     

    The spacing between line 2491 and 2492 looks to be different than the surrounding lines.  Looks like the "Don't add space between paragraphs of the same style" check box was checked for lines 2491 and 2492.  Fixing that seemed to fix the layout on my local copy.

     

    Is section C.2 Participants going to be updated? 

     

    Thanks

    Darren

     




    Original Message


  • 3.  RE: pkcs11-spec-v3.2-wd11.docx uploaded

    Posted 03-11-2025 07:49

    Hi Darren,

    thanks for your review.

    1. good point. Yes, we should agree on a wording that does not require an update when adding mechanisms in future versions of the specification.
    2. I'll have a look at the formatting. And this may not be the last time we come across some odd formatting, I already corrected various odd formatting in older content while adding new proposals.
    3. Participants and various other highlighted sections will be reviewed and updated in next stages of the process.

    Unless anyone disagrees, I also don't see the need for fixing these issues before going for public review.



    ------------------------------
    Best regards,
    Dieter
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


Related Content